Saturday, September 14, 2013

Robert Bevins, a former professor of biology at Georgetown College who is probably the most widely-quoted supporter of Kentucky's unapproved but forcibly implemented new science standards, said at a recent legislative hearing that Kentucky would be seen as a "backwater" if it didn't approve the science standards.

The problem is that if the science standards are passed, Kentucky students won't know what a backwater is.

In the legislative committee meeting in which the standards were rejected, Bevins gave testimony asserting that my word counts were incorrect when I asserted, in my Lexington Herald-Leader article, that climate science terms were used 130 times while other terms one would expect to be more common in a set of science standards were far fewer--or absent altogether.

I made some notes while Bevins was speaking, just before I gave may own testimony on Bevins' attempted refutation of my argument. Then, I discovered his more extensive response to my arguments on the website of the group he heads, Kentuckians for Science Education.

Here is what he says in the post on his site responding to my arguments: "An examination of the Next Generation Science Standards by word count and context regarding claims of excessive focus on climate change." He then goes on to give his own findings about what he found in the NGSS document.

First problem: Bevins misrepresents the document I claimed to have analyed
The first thing to note about his response is that he completely misrepresents what I claimed. He says I claimed to have done a word search on the Next Generation Science Standards document: "Mr Cothran’s initial analysis of the NGSS document," he says, "vastly overestimates the importance of anthropogenic climate change in the NGSS document, especially in elementary and middle school grades."

Mr. Bevin's assertion is simply false.

I said very specifically in my op-ed that I did the word search on the Kentucky Core Academic Standards document, which is the actual document in question in this debate. Here are my exact words: "If you do a simple word search through the Kentucky Core Academic Standards document, the problem becomes apparent
..." [Emphasis added]

In other words, Bevins' entire attempted refutation is based on a mistaken understanding of the document at issue.

Now obviously the Kentucky Core Academic Standards includes the Next Generation Science Standards as well as a number of other subject areas. In addition, I have not done a careful comparison between the science sections Kentucky standards document and the NGSS document. I suspect they are substantially the same, although Kentucky Department of Education officials said at the legislative meeting last Wednesday that they had made some modifications which sound minor.

In any case, I never claimed to have done any kind of content analysis on the Next Generation Science Standards document itself, as Bevins claims, and therefore the word counts he claims as corrections of my word counts are irrelevant.

Second problem: Bevins overstates what I said the document emphasized
He also asserted that my word count involved terms related to climate change and that, in fact, the terms I found in my word search were related to climate science in general, but not climate change in particular. What I in fact said was that these were terms related to climate science.

Again, Bevins misrepresents what I said. Here is what I said: "If we had only Kentucky's science standards to go by, we would have to conclude that climate and weather issues are more important than gravity, photosynthesis, electricity, genetics, radiation and quantum mechanics." [Emphasis added] I then said, very specifically, exactly which terms I was counting: "...the terms "climate," "weather" and "global warming" are together mentioned over 130 times."

I did say, prior to those specific claims, that there was "an avalanche of terms related to climate change." I said that because my assumption was that the reason for having all of those climate and weather related terms in the standards was because of the recent interest in climate change. In other words, the prevalence of climate science terminology was my evidence for an emphasis on climate change in the standards.

Now I suppose someone could argue with my assumption that the reason for the inclusion of all the climate science emphasis in the standards is not due to the interest in climate change (and Bevins tries to do this), but that would be rather hard to believe. It would also not square with the responses by standards supporters to my argument, which was not that I was wrong about the emphasis on climate change, but rather that the standards were, in fact, correct in emphasizing it (through an emphasis on climate science). Just see the two responses that appeared to my article in the Herald Leader two weeks later.

In any case, my claims about the data itself had to do specifically and explicitly with climate science terminology.

So the two chief assumptions of Bevins refutation are mistaken.

And in regard to his claim that Kentucky will be seen as a backwater if it doesn't pass the standards, so what? We should mis-educate our children in order not to look bad?

22 comments:

Your argument continues to fail. The NGSS are copied and pasted, intact, into the Core document, excepting some short pieces introducing each main section.

It is further flawed since the standards ask students to learn concepts that can only be understood if they learn certain vocabulary words, it is actually not necessary to put those words into a standards document. Those details are to be found in a curriculum. Standards are not a curriculum.

To claim that my assessment is false because I used the NGSS instead of the Ky Core, which itself reproduces the NGSS, makes me wonder if you have read either document instead of simply searched for words you thought might seem useful and then taken the numbers at face value.

If you intend to make the argument that the NGSS and Core are lacking content, it is necessary to actually examine the content to a deeper level than you have. It requires looking at context.

To be completely clear, your word count technique is an inferior technique for arriving at a conclusion of what is and is not stressed in any document.

I welcome corrections offered by readers, friendly or not, and I will make corrections my post. I will also perform an analysis of the Ky core to test your claims, which I am certain will again demonstrate that your word count is not a useful metric of content. It simply mischaracterizes the document in such a way as to lead your readers to a false conclusion, regardless of whether that was your intention or not.

Um, the new science standards were approved. That there is a vocal anti-science faction in the legislature and behind the scenes doesn't change the fact that these standards have been extensively vetted.

Just because they don't call for the rote memorization of the Latin terms of the original created kinds, or for learning God's purpose for all living things (as per Tiner), doesn't mean that the standards are flawed.

Martin,You are an ardent supporter of intelligent design, which scientists reject, and the courts have rejected as unscientific and merely a backdoor way of sneaking religion into class. It's clear from your history that you're not concerned about scientific standards, but rather a political agenda that rejects well founded science because it doesn't fit your religious or economic mindset.

To put it succinctly: Where do the NGSS say that the reason they focus on climate science is because of some political agenda on climate change?

More elaborately:

When he has posts published on ID websites, when he writes approvingly of creationists, when he is the director of (at least according to the company's website) a publisher that publishes science books from a 'biblical viewpoint', when he is the policy analyst for an organization that promotes creationism and agitates against evolution in schools in churches using plain falsehoods about evolution, when he attacks court decisions against ID, when he says that he doesn't have enough information to decide how old the earth is and, when pressed, can do no better than vaguely stating that it 'seems to him that it is very old' - then we are completely out of bounds to be assuming he's a creationist/cdesign proponentsist. I mean, how dare we make these assumptions?!

Yet when Martin does a straight up word count of a science standards document and only gives the circumstantial evidence of supporters of the standards defending climate science in general, well then things are totally different:

'Now I suppose someone could argue with my assumption that the reason for the inclusion of all the climate science emphasis in the standards is not due to the interest in climate change (and Bevins tries to do this), but that would be rather hard to believe.'

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- Outgoing Kentucky Education Commissioner Gene Wilhoit says it would be a mistake for the state Board of Education to hire a replacement who believes "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools.

That's because intelligent design promotes a specific religious viewpoint that can't be tested by science, he said -- the idea that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of a creator.

"Intelligent design at this point has not been shown to be a scientific theory that can stand the test," Wilhoit said in an interview Friday. "I think it would be a divisive factor to place on the agenda right now."

Board of Education Chairman Keith Travis said the next commissioner's position on teaching intelligent design won't be a criterion in the search process.

"Debating this on a state level probably will distract us onto that issue more than it should," Travis said.

But Martin Cothran, a senior policy analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky, said an objection to teaching intelligent design in schools "should automatically disqualify" any potential commissioner candidate.

"It should be acknowledged that it is a position that is being discussed in our society and that we should allow our schools to objectively allow discussion of its merits," Cothran said.

Let's try this again. Is ID science? The courts and science says it is not. It is simply creationism with window dressing. Do you believe it is? If you do not know, why not? If you believe it is, then you don't understand science. If you believe it isn't, then I would have to assume you support a discussion in the classroom of why it isn't science.

So don't be obtuse. Answer the questions above. If you can't, I'll ask again, why should anyone take what you have to say about science seriously?

You're worried about kids not getting the facts, but it seems as though you're unwilling to discuss what facts you know yourself.

"Are you saying that you don't recognize the difference between a discussion over whether something is science or not and the question of whether an issue should be discussed or not?"

Neither. I think that an honest discussion of science, including the factual evidence that shows ID and Creationism do not meet any scientific criteria is a valid one to have with students and support it 100%.

You have stated this "My position (and I haven't done a search on this one, but I'm fairly confident I've never said anything else) is that what science teachers teach in their classrooms should be left up to science teachers. I'm against mandating it and I'm against prohibiting it. If teachers think that it is appropriate to mention the raging debate now going on about this issue, and explain some of the issues that we are discussing on this blog, I don't think that would be inappropriate."

If by this statement you mean a discussion of why Intelligent Design is not science, then I would say I agree with you. If you mean that you're okay with a science teacher advising ID is science, then you're wanting teachers to teach bad science. WHich is it?

'And anyone who is remotely familiar with the demarcation question in the philosophy of science knows what a tortured question it is.'

Oddly enough, the vast majority of scientists (you know, the people who actually do science) have no problem at all to decide quite swiftly and decisively that ID is not science. And they have been very successful in convincing judges - even conservative ones - that this is so. If there is this 'tortured debate', how do you explain this?

I know how much philosophers would like to think the 'tortured' discussions they have actually still matter in the real world, but the harsh reality is they really don't.

And if you think philosophers of science would do a good job of writing science standards - well that would certainly earn you some good belly laughs from actual scientists.

Finally, you once again have a perfect opportunity here and now to tell us, once and for all whether

Oddly enough, the vast majority of scientists (you know, the people who actually do science) have no problem at all to decide quite swiftly and decisively that ID is not science. And they have been very successful in convincing judges - even conservative ones - that this is so. If there is this 'tortured debate', how do you explain this?

Oh, gee, I must have missed the part in my philosophy of science textbook on how a show of hands is a great methodology for settling the demarcation question. Must have been right there next to the part about how a judges ruling is sufficient to settle it.

I know how much philosophers would like to think the 'tortured' discussions they have actually still matter in the real world, but the harsh reality is they really don't.

I can see how the more sophisticated discussion of this issue among philosophers wouldn't matter to people who think that hand counts and judges rulings are good ways to settle issues in the philosophy of science.

or some combination of the above - or maybe something else - is what you believe.

Unlike the demarcation question, this is a scientific question and, not being a scientist I can't have a definitive opinion on it. I can say that I completely reject a) on philosophical grounds; I don't know precisely what b) means; I doubt c) on philosophical grounds; and I seriously doubt d) on various grounds (theological, philosophical, and hermeneutical).

'Oh, gee, I must have missed the part in my philosophy of science textbook on how a show of hands is a great methodology for settling the demarcation question.'

Really? Aren't you the same guy who has agued in the past that there has to be something to religion because so many people believe in some form of it?

And since when exactly has citing a 'tortured debate' among philosophers been a good enough reason for telling scientists that they're wrong to dismiss ID as non-science? Care to elborate on that one?

'I'm trying to find where I said that philosophers of science would do a good job of writing science standards.'

Well apparently philosophers are really good at tealling scientists what science is, right? So shouldn't they be telling scientists what can and can't go into the science standards as good science? Isn;t that you're whole argument for allowing ID into schools?

Or are you changing your story on that?

'Maybe that's in that mysterious post where I endorsed Intelligent Design.'

Unfortunately, we still don't know what your position on ID is, Martin. It would be so easy for you to clear up all this confusion and put all of our assumptions to shame if you just wrote a short little statement about what you actually believe.

'So my tentative answer is, "None of the above."'

So you don't know whether you believe in evolution or ID or Creationism - in fact you say your scientific knowledge I so scant as to prevent forming any opinion on the matter? You haven't even heard of theistic evolution, even though it's commnl used in scientific and religious circles?

And we're supposed to take your 'opinions' on evolutionary science (or any science at all)and what science to teach seriously, when in fact you say you don't have even have any opinion on it?